|
or...you could just tap it with the dshk. or the coax if you don't want to go to the trouble of unbuttoning.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
bewbies posted:or...you could just tap it with the dshk. or the coax if you don't want to go to the trouble of unbuttoning. The coaxial machinegun is, literally, coaxial to the main gun so it's aiming is the same in every aspect. AAMG option would be better for aiming as it has open sights. One other reason why you really don't want to try driving circles close around a tank is that the muzzle blast of the main gun alone is enough to kill you if you are in the right place at the wrong time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
another reason to not be driving around tanks is they usually travel in groups
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:another reason to not be driving around tanks is they usually travel in groups "Scratch my back" is the standard radio call for "there's a bunch of enemy near me, so hose them down with machinegun fire." Enemy grunts or trucks will get taken out by rounds which will bounce off of a tank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
What if you have reactive armour? Would machine guns trigger reactive armour blocks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What if you have reactive armour? Would machine guns trigger reactive armour blocks? If it doesn't, I wonder what's smallest thing that will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:If it doesn't, I wonder what's smallest thing that will. Another question is, how thick does your own vehicle's armour need to be if you want to use ERA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What if you have reactive armour? Would machine guns trigger reactive armour blocks? No, they're not that sensitive. They have to be pretty GI-proof...they won't detonate if they're dropped, shot, welded, painted, looked at funny, or if a block next to it detonates. Newer ones aren't even supposed to explode externally - the explosion is supposed to be contained by the casing, although this doesn't necessarily work if the outer casing was damaged by the impact of the round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
bewbies posted:No, they're not that sensitive. They have to be pretty GI-proof...they won't detonate if they're dropped, shot, welded, painted, looked at funny, or if a block next to it detonates. Newer ones aren't even supposed to explode externally - the explosion is supposed to be contained by the casing, although this doesn't necessarily work if the outer casing was damaged by the impact of the round. What about autocannon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Do tanks still have canister shot like 18th century artillery guns?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Do tanks still have canister shot like 18th century artillery guns? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Another question is, how thick does your own vehicle's armour need to be if you want to use ERA? Not much, it doesn't have penetrative force and even a bit of armour deflects normal high explosive force quite well. But for it to be useful I think you need some armour - the ERA is not guaranteed to counter all the force of the HEAT, just enough that the damage is minimal. Putting it on a Humvee or your mom's Honda Civic wouldn't do much other than add a ton of extra weight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This was kind of conventional wisdom for a long time. Engagements like Stalingrad and Hue and Grozny seemed to tell everyone that mechanized and armored forces in cities were DOOMED, and that was a basic planning assumption all the way through the start of OIF. After 15 years in Iraq though, tactics and equipment evolved a lot. Tanks and mechs became a lot more survivable, and armor support became a pretty fundamental part of urban combat. Obviously you still need dismounts to get into the nooks and crannies of a city, but planning for urban operations now revolves pretty heavily around how you're going to employ your armor. A lot of the same trends happened in the Crimea even more recently. Cessna posted:Yes, very much so. Tanks can be VERY useful in cities - any grunt that turns down fire support from a bunch of machineguns and a 120mm main isn't making the right decision. But that doesn't mean that tanks should blunder alone around like blind elephants, that's just asking for trouble. Alchenar posted:German successes in 1941 with armour taking cities were entirely the result of them managing to show up before any defences had been seriously prepared and drive straight through while the motorised infantry swept up the key locations. They didn't like to do it and it went wrong when they came up against a prepared defence. Ever so slowly, we're inching back towards separating tanks into infantry tanks and cruiser tanks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm definitely not actually digging up anything, I more just want to rummage around in the woods and see if any relics survive on the surface. In the unlikely event I do find something I have a buddy in the history department at KU who would love to make a formal study of it. This was pretty much exactly the answer i was hoping for. Having spent too much time binge watching Time Team, it just felt weird not to at least poke at you and make sure you weren't doing anything they kept lamenting other people did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Ever so slowly, we're inching back towards separating tanks into infantry tanks and cruiser tanks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about autocannon? I do not know about US systems but Russian ones you'd find on tanks are supposed to be proof against heavy machinegun fire up to 14.5mm. Autocannon AP rounds have a decent chance of setting it off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Ever so slowly, we're inching back towards separating tanks into infantry tanks and cruiser tanks Ahem, I think you meant assault guns and tank destroyers 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Ever so slowly, we're inching back towards separating tanks into infantry tanks and cruiser tanks We did, we just call them "IFVs" and "MBTs" now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Do tanks still have canister shot like 18th century artillery guns? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riy4EaoR76U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8 Turns out when you scale canister shot up to a 105mm anti-tank gun, you get results that are a little more extreme than a Napoleonic cannon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
I mean there is always a situation for a giant gently caress off shotgun.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Now I want to see a tank fire two HEAT shells chained together. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I mean there is always a situation for a giant gently caress off shotgun. I heard something about how Abrams would use canister to blow holes in building walls without taking the whole building down or firing an AP shell that would travel through two city blocks without stopping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about autocannon? As a general rule, ERA is tailored to meet the protection of the vehicle it is on. In other words, if it is something that could defeat the base armor, the ERA should react, but if it isn't, the ERA should not detonate. IE, if a vehicle is supposed to resist .50 fire and shrapnel, then the ERA should only react to things beefier than .50 and shrapnel. So, in theory at least, the blocks on tanks shouldn't react to cannon fire, but the blocks on Brads or Strykers should. In practice this is really hard, because cannon rounds (especially APS rounds) have a LOT of energy and penetrative power for their size. To that end, one of the big engineering challenges for the SEP4 ERA upgrade is developing blocks that can resist light HEAT rounds and APS cannon rounds, not only without detonating, but without shredding the outer casing of the block. The original engineering statement was something along the lines of "not blow unless it eats a full-sized sabot round or bigass/tandem HEAT round", which in practice is EXTREMELY hard to do. The only solution they could find was to seriously beef up the outside of the front plates of the blocks, which ended up adding a shitload of weight, which is one of the reasons why the SEP4 in its heaviest proposed configuration is too big to cross most bridges in eastern Europe. In related news I was talking recently to a couple of tankers who were working on the SEP4 program and they both insisted that a SEP4 Abrams vs. a vanilla M1 from back in the day would be like the vanilla M1 taking on a Sherman. I found this comparison amusing; I have no way to verify their claim. Don Gato posted:Do tanks still have canister shot like 18th century artillery guns? The US at least has taken this idea to 11 and developed a super high tech round that simultaneously serves as HEAT, regular HE, canister, proximity fused AA, and penetrating HE. I have absolutely no idea how they got one round to do all of those things at once. bewbies fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
I was reading earlier about Soviet remote controlled "teletanks", which supposedly used radar imaging to feed a rough idea of their surroundings back to a small CRT screen, and were pioneered in the interwar period. Does anyone know a good source for like, some easy to process information about those? I have a masters in history but I'm terrible at interpreting technical stuff, so I'm mostly interested in their design process and stuff in the Soviet context
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:In related news I was talking recently to a couple of tankers who were working on the SEP4 program and they both insisted that a SEP4 Abrams vs. a vanilla M1 from back in the day would be like the vanilla M1 taking on a Sherman. I found this comparison amusing; I have no way to verify their claim. It doesn’t sound completely ridiculous, the original M1 wasn’t terribly well protected in comparison and had the 105 with like M774. Pretty big difference to the different armor comp of the later M1A2. The M829A3/E4 would probably be as effective against a standard M1 as the A1 was against T-72s. Also there’s basically the same amount of one between the Sherman and M1 as there is between the M1 and the M1A2 SEPv4. As for the ammo, I know they do this on Hellfires and the like by adding a frag/blast sleeve around the HEAT charge. The fusing should be independent of the warhead too so it’s very much possible to combine that stuff into one AFAIK. I think the Romeo Hellfire is supposedly the same multi-purpose upgrade. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Also kind of amusing: the time between the introduction of the original M1 and the target date of the SEP 4 (1980 vs 2024) is longer than the time between the Sherman and the M1 (1942 vs 1980).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Also kind of amusing: the time between the introduction of the original M1 and the target date of the SEP 4 (1980 vs 2024) is longer than the time between the Sherman and the M1 (1942 vs 1980). Lol gently caress I added that into my post with an edit at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US at least has taken this idea to 11 and developed a super high tech round that simultaneously serves as HEAT, regular HE, canister, proximity fused AA, and penetrating HE. I have absolutely no idea how they got one round to do all of those things at once. I'm guessing it does none of those things as well as a dedicated round does, if it even works and exists at all. There is just no way you can engineer a round that does five things as well as a dedicated round does one. Engineering just doesn't work like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
(spikes football)Geisladisk posted:I'm guessing it does none of those things as well as a dedicated round does, if it even works and exists at all. There is just no way you can engineer a round that does five things as well as a dedicated round does one. Engineering just doesn't work like that. Well it definitely exists, and initial reviews on it are very positive. The only major concern -- to everyone's complete and total surprise I'm sure -- is cost per shot. Tankers are pretty enthusiastic about trading in a couple of super-specialized rounds per-loadout for a multipurpose round that does everything, even if it comes with a downgrade in performance. bewbies fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I'm guessing it does none of those things as well as a dedicated round does, if it even works and exists at all. There is just no way you can engineer a round that does five things as well as a dedicated round does one. Engineering just doesn't work like that. The point is to get pretty close and allow the tank to not have to carry 4 different rounds since they have very limited space. You can wrap a standard HEAT charge, the like current MPAT, in a sleeve of He/Frag, and get acceptable performance for each thing with a standardized tool. Also you can absolutely have a variable fuzing for delayed/proc/airburst/etc. Modern seekers like SDB fit seperate guidance modes (MMW radar, IIR and laser) into the same tiny package per missile. It’s kind of insane. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyAsfo6rEz0 This looks dope as hell. As far as I can tell it's set during the Three Kingdoms era but I can't tell what's made up and what's historical from the limited online sources I could find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The point is to get pretty close and allow the tank to not have to carry 4 different rounds since they have very limited space. And if you have say, SABOT loaded in the breech and suddenly need to fire a HE/HEAT shell at some RPG party, the procedure is to fire the wrong round and then load the correct shell, which wastes both time and ammunition. Taking the wrong shell out of the breech and back to the rack after which you load the right one is, I have been told, too time consuming to do in combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyAsfo6rEz0 Entirely fictional, based on a series of novels, as far as I'm aware. I don't think it's based on the 3K period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
bewbies posted:(spikes football) Wait until they add a stealth capability and vtol Nenonen posted:And if you have say, SABOT loaded in the breech and suddenly need to fire a HE/HEAT shell at some RPG party, the procedure is to fire the wrong round and then load the correct shell, which wastes both time and ammunition. Taking the wrong shell out of the breech and back to the rack after which you load the right one is, I have been told, too time consuming to do in combat. Yeah, sure, that's the rationale, but I don't really see US tanks fighting in an environment where they need to unexpectedly engage tanks and aircraft in a hurry, any time soon. I mean surely the idea of trying to shoot aircraft with a tank cannon is a joke, regardless of the shell you use. EDIT: Looks like this thing isn't really meant to have much armour penetration anyway, so you'll still need the SABOT loaded in the breech. Switching between HEAT and Canister is plausibly useful I suppose. Hopefully it doesn't lead to a platoon being wiped out by friendly fire because the gunner had his shells set to the wrong mode. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
my dad posted:Entirely fictional, based on a series of novels, as far as I'm aware. I don't think it's based on the 3K period. Yeah I googled the book series it was based on and it returned the name of a famous 3K general so I was confused.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah I googled the book series it was based on and it returned the name of a famous 3K general so I was confused. China big. Names few.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Wait until they add a stealth capability and vtol Really a stretch on literally all of this. The point is to have a round that can do all the poo poo you dont need an AP round, instead of having 4 to do those things. It’s not designed to shoot down helicopters in particular but it can be fused to do so, just like it can be fused to air burst or explode inside a wall instead of contact, whatever. It also can be fired at light vehicles, small structures, bridge supports, you name it. It’s a multi-purpose round replacing 3-4 already existing single purpose rounds, rounds used all the time in Operation Useless Dirt. But instead of carrying 12/10/6/4 in your ammo storage, you carry 12/20. This is some cases will triple a tanks ability to stay in the fight with the proper weapon. You also reduce the need to have production lines/logistics for four different rounds. Having a single purpose HE with variable fuzing is not some crazy new idea, they are just hard to make. They are expensive vs standard metal shell with HE inside, but they do things that shell w/ HE cannot do, like air burst exactly above that ditch 600 yards away and kill that ATGM you couldn’t hit otherwise. You trade price for capability, it’s not that complicated. Especially true with novel poo poo and small production runs, which this will not be once it’s matured. You can argue the costs all day if you feel like but at the end of the day having a useful capability you didn’t have previously, one that makes your soldiers more capable, is pretty loving important in the long term. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Does anyone here have some sources on when Harriers began operating from gator freighters with some regularity? I know that Iwo Jima has them as early as 75 but that was the pilot program ship. When did it get rolled out in a broader sense? The usual internet sources aren’t being to helpful for me right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:I was reading earlier about Soviet remote controlled "teletanks", which supposedly used radar imaging to feed a rough idea of their surroundings back to a small CRT screen, and were pioneered in the interwar period. Does anyone know a good source for like, some easy to process information about those? I have a masters in history but I'm terrible at interpreting technical stuff, so I'm mostly interested in their design process and stuff in the Soviet context Boy have I got the link for you: https://tankarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/teletank
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Wait until they add a stealth capability and vtol The anti-aircraft capability is really a tack-on....shooting a tank gun at an angry Gator isn't anyone's first choice, although it is surprisingly capable against a slow or hovering target. One thing the new shells have been doing quite well is engaging drones. The army doesn't have a lot of things that can effectively engage a WVR low slow drone target, and these things can do the job surprisingly effectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 17:41
|
|